Text Size

-

+

reset

The second is unfolding in the courts — and the Supreme Court may eventually weigh in on questions about constitutionally protected religious freedom, the public good and whether secular corporations can be, as one judge put it, the “alter ego” of their religious owners.

Dozens of lawsuits have been filed in protest of the Obama administration’s policy that most employers include no-cost coverage of FDA-approved prescription contraceptives in health plans.

Churches and some — not all — religious organizations are exempt. But more than three dozen for-profit and nonprofit organizations have gone to court, citing religious objections to the birth control coverage rule, which itself is part of the women’s health provisions in the controversial health law. The suits only affect this section of the law and wouldn’t affect the rest of Obamacare — except by keeping some of the opponents all fired up.

Here’s a rundown on who is suing — and the big legal issues at stake.

Businesses

For-profit companies have challenged the provision on religious liberty grounds.

In three cases so far, district court judges in Colorado, Michigan and Washington, D.C., have issued preliminary injunctions. That doesn’t overturn the law, or spell out a complete legal victory. But the injunctions temporarily halt enforcement for a specific company — and recognize the plaintiff is raising legitimate questions that deserve a day in court. These involved an HVAC company, a seller of outdoor power equipment and a Bible publisher.

But not all the judges have agreed. Plaintiffs in Oklahoma have been denied a preliminary injunction. And one district court judge in Missouri last month dismissed not just the request for a temporary injunction but the whole case.

Religious groups

The second category of plaintiffs are religiously affiliated entities — schools, universities and dioceses. This week, the Supreme Court gave the go-ahead for the 4th Circuit to reconsider a broad challenge to several parts of the health law, including the contraception rules, brought by Liberty University.

But some of these suits have been tossed out as “unripe” or denied an injunction because they are temporarily exempt from the contraception coverage rule. That’s because the Obama administration gave itself until next August to refine the exemption policy. Churches and some religious organizations already are exempt. But so far, a compromise has not been reached for religiously affiliated employers, who say they may still have to indirectly pay for coverage. But the courts say it’s premature for them to weigh in.

Here’s a look at some of the legal issues in the cases so far.

Can a business exercise religion?

The government argues: absolutely not. A for-profit company can’t exercise religion — and therefore, the contraception rule presents no “substantial burden” on religious exercise.

Readers' Comments (12)

What is downright scary with these contraception lawsuits is that on grounds of religious beliefs of an employer that lives could be unnecessarily lost! Suppose your Jehovah Witness boss is allowed to offer only health insurance plans that exclude coverage for any procedures in which blood transfusions are necessary? How far is this employer-based pick and choose is allow to jepordize lives? All the more reason that we need, preferably, a single payer health insurance system that is fully disconnected from the whims and beliefs of employers!

This entire debate would go away if Congress directly funded access to free contraceptives, paying for it with taxpayer dollars with an exception for abortion causing drugs. No business owners, Democrat or Republican, want the burden of providing health care to our employees.

No body wants to hear the truth because the truth would end the debate and nobody wants that. Well here is the truth. There is a difference between choosing to have a baby and being a whore. Contraception is about not getting pregnant. If you want contraception for recreational sex it should not be covered. Don't try to tell us that choosing to have recreational sex is a health issue.

As for Viagra, the same holds true. If you want it for recreational sex it is not a health issue. If you need it to help you have a relationship with your partner then it is.

Contraception is so easy to get and so inexpensive that it affects a persons finances very little. But the real question is why is the government and the courts involved in something so frivolous?

The law is really pretty unclear on this, as to whether a for-profit entity could have religious beliefs,” said Julianna Gonen, acting director of government relations for the Center for Reproductive Rights.

Just the church trying to distract from the pedophile financial exposure. It s a form of bait and switch. Take your eye off the ball and its all about something else. The church can t get even the most middle of the road Katlic to observe the nonsensicle no BC rule so they are trying to regulate through secular law. What a joke. Excommunicate your members for using it if you dare. You won t have the scratcheroo to pay off the pedo victims.